# Changing tobacco tastes



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

Without getting into too much history, I was always a confirmed VA, VaPer and latakia smoker. OTC's were taboo for "real pipesmokers" (a fraternity I'm happy NOT to be a part of any longer) and flavored tobaccos were as well. 

After a 12 year hiatus I came back to pipes in 2007. I had carried some 80 tins of my favorite blends into my return, not realizing that things like Sobranie, Sullivan Powell and such had gone the way of the dodo bird. Nevertheless, I continued on my previous path and was and am quite happy.

I had tried things like GLP and found them boring, and things like G&H and found them soapy. 1792 was not fun! Couldn't understand the hubbub, so I kept on with my faves like Escudo, various McClellands and the like.

Eventually I discovered burleys. "Burley Is Burley" was the buzz-phrase for the '80's and '90's. Wow, was THAT wrong! I got into and then attacked burleys with a vengeance. Thanks, EvanS (Puff poster that seems to have disappeared!) for setting me straight. 

And now after ordering a 7 blend sampler of G&H tobaccos, I'm finding a taste for these floral, soapy conglomerations. Ennerdale Flake must be the most heavily flavored tobacco this side of Mixture #79 but I'm really enjoying it! Kendal Flake is flavored with rose and geranium, for God's sake! And it's wonderful stuff! At this moment, I'm smoking Louisiana Flake, which has enough of the "soap" taste to have turned me off a year ago and I'm enjoying the living shite out of it! Ok, I still hate the ropes... strong tobaccos don't faze me but blends I find harsh will never be tolerated! But I'm looking forward to trying 1792 again - IF I can ever find any! I've found some amazing GLP blends as well, a blender I previously thought couldn't make anything better than mediocre. Funny too - after chatting with Greg a couple of times via email, he knows more about tobacco than I could ever hope to learn.

Moral to the story? There are three (at least):

1) Sometimes it's worthwhile to revisit old tobaccos you thought you hated.
2) Our internal biases play a huge part in what we like or don't like - sometimes a bigger part than our taste buds.
3) Don't EVER let anyone tell you what you should or should not smoke! Try every style imaginable.

Smoke on, my brothers, be it soapy Lakeland, ketchupy McClelland, crappy drugstore burley or bitey Mac Baren (all descriptors borrowed and are not the opinions of the author!).


----------



## Diodon nepheligina (Nov 5, 2009)

Sage advice here. PM sent.


----------



## shannensmall (Jun 30, 2010)

Great post, an RG bump for your thoughts on this subject.


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Very interesting post! One of your best and that's saying a lot considering the quality of your posts. RG Bump as well.


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 20, 2008)

Really nice post Dan. 

Reminds me of a favorite quotation:

"Experience is experience of human finitude. The truly experienced person is one who has taken this to heart, who knows that he is master neither of time nor the future. The experienced man knows that all foresight is limited and all plans uncertain...real experience is that whereby man becomes aware of his finiteness." - Hans-Georg Gadamer


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

+1

This is a "nothing but net" post. We recently had the "real pipe smoker" discussion of snobbery in the hobby. Is there anything that should be LESS snobbish and exclusive than pipe smoking?

The saddest thing for us to think about is that our choices may be more and more limited as time passes. So try it, smoke it, and enjoy it while we can.


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Excellent advice!!! I think #2 is one of the worse things that affect pipe men. I myself am not immune to it in the least. One of the best things about participating in blind reviews for me, both watching and reviewing. It's fun to see what sinks and swims when the label doesn't play a factor.

I think revisiting blends you tried early on as a new pipe smoker is particularly important. You most likely had poor technique and pipes that weren't broke in and it most certainly had an effect on the outcome in a few cases. I know I had a few blends that smoked harsh, bitter, and/or wet that mysteriously don't seem to anymore.


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks for the bumps, guys! Glad you liked the post. It seems the more I learn, the more I think I know, and the more I think I know, the more I realize that I don't know. er sumpin like 'at!


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

Granger said:


> Is there anything that should be LESS snobbish and exclusive than pipe smoking?


True. Fighting with others over personal tastes does little to promote our hobby. I think I'm gonna go smoke some Lane's BCA.


----------



## sounds7 (Mar 25, 2009)

Been guilty of a little tobacco snobbery myself. I even compared over the counter tobaccos to "Spam" in another thread. :nono: I should consider that all taste buds are unique and pipe smoking is a personal journey. All of us make that journey in different ways but the bottom line is that if you the smoker are enjoying what you are doing you must be doing something right. Good thread.


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

ultramag said:


> Excellent advice!!! I think #2 is one of the worse things that affect pipe men. I myself am not immune to it in the least.


No one is. Biases are ingrained and many of them are sub-conscious.

As for blind tests, I totally agree. I've witnessed many folks who absolutely hated Blender A smoke one blind and loved it. After sampling 4 GLP tobaccos, I caught myself saying "can't this guy make a decent blend?" The problem is that from the very first one, that bias began to grow and it affected the next 3. Of the first 4, 3 of them are blends I now find quite good. There have been others since those 4 that are astounding. I may not have tried them if I hadn't fought off the bias. But the first step is realizing a bias is there. NOT easy!


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

sounds7 said:


> I should consider that all taste buds are unique and pipe smoking is a personal journey.


Excellent point. And taste buds don't just taste "good" or "bad". They also taste ketchup, soap and flowers, and to varying degrees. For years, I couldn't figure out how people could smell or taste ketchup in McClellands. Ok, I still think they think they taste it because they first smell it, but that's only my opinion - and since I don't know what someone else tastes... well, you get the idea. Elsewhere, I was discussing G&H tobaccos and advised someone that Ennerdale was the floweriest of them all. Someone else disagreed and said that another one was.

So it's degrees of the same essential taste, and how we process them and how important they are to us. All I can say is that tobacco is a lot of fun! The nuances are amazing and the range of flavors is incredible. We owe a lot to the blending houses that bring us all this wonderful stuff! Everything from Sir Walter Raleigh to Sobranie.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

dmkerr said:


> True. Fighting with others over personal tastes does little to promote our hobby. I think I'm gonna go smoke some Lane's BCA.


Well as long as you didn't mention a certain mixture that shall not be named denoted by a number.

People who smoke that are not REAL Pipe Smokers anywayp


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

Granger said:


> Well as long as you didn't mention a certain mixture that shall not be named denoted by a number.
> 
> People who smoke that are not REAL Pipe Smokers anywayp


That's because it's not REAL pipe tobacco!

You're really getting the hang of this! :laugh:

What's really funny is that I might even give that stuff another try! What was it... 965? 759? Oh, you meant #79!!! Yeah, that! I might try it again, but in its own pipe. More ghosts than Amityville in that one.


----------



## commonsenseman (Apr 18, 2008)

Great thread. It is amazing how much tastes can change over time. Although I've never taken a 12-year break from pipe smoking, over the past 2 years my preferences have changed several times.

As for "the one that shall not be named", I would recommend not smoking it ever again. It's like "the smell" from Seinfeld........you'll end up having to sell everything that came in contact with it or face public humiliation the rest of your life.


----------



## ruralhipster (Jan 15, 2010)

Very true points.

I find my self revisting a bowl of vaper every week or two. The first bowl was dumped after about 1/4, then I tried it in a cob, still a not to a go but was able to finish that bowl over the course of a day. a few days ago I tried it in my ridiculously small bulldog and can say I found it pleasant 20 minutes. I see the wisdom of "cellar wide/cellar deep" now as I only have to visit my den to grab a can of Escudo next, and not wait on a paycheck or mailman.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

dmkerr said:


> Oh, you meant #79!!! Yeah, that! I might try it again, but in its own pipe. More ghosts than Amityville in that one.


OH NO! HE SAID IT! NOW THE MONSTER WILL APPEAR!

NO! NO! NO!

Next thing you know he will stand in front a of mirror at midnight and start chanting!


----------



## SmoknTaz (Jun 18, 2008)

Great post!

The only blends I've steered away from so far are the ones that that are known for their high vitamin N content. Other than that I've pretty much been trying everything I could get my hands on. There's a few blends that I haven't enjoyed but I put them in small jars to revisit down the road.


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

commonsenseman said:


> As for "the one that shall not be named", I would recommend not smoking it ever again. It's like "the smell" from Seinfeld........you'll end up having to sell everything that came in contact with it or face public humiliation the rest of your life.


Somebody at TR.com reviewed #79 and said that all the negative reviewers were just "piling on". Well, isn't that how it worked when we were kids - we all piled on top of the weakest kid? :SM

Snobbery can be kinda funny sometimes.


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

dmkerr said:


> True. Fighting with others over personal tastes does little to promote our hobby. I think I'm gonna go smoke some Lane's BCA.


Your original post was great! This post, however, just clicked with me. Fighting with others over personal tastes....LOL. It's like telling someone they're wrong for feeling emotions.

Someone once told me, "Never apologize for your taste in wine." I extend that to pipes. Never apologize for your taste in pipes and tobacco. (unless it's OTC's and aromatics! LOL just kidding!)

Thank you for that little epiphany. Hmmm....Epiphany. Sounds like a good smoke for the evening.


----------



## Firedawg (Nov 8, 2010)

Im so new at it, I want to try everything and since we all have different views and tastes its is great to hear what others like and compare. I might even try the #79 someday just to see what is so bad about it(heck I might like it). Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

owaindav said:


> Fighting with others over personal tastes....LOL. It's like telling someone they're wrong for feeling emotions.


Sometimes we are just "wrong" for liking a "bad" tobacco or for not liking a "good" one.

Mac Baren's Symphony is one I take a bit of grief over. It's the only MacB's in my rotation. But it's a "bitey" tobacco. Now, I have a problem with tobaccos being classified as inherently "bitey". How would they sell so much? Who enjoys tongue bite? At any rate, it tends to get mediocre to bad reviews, and it's the only Mac B I regularly smoke. Go figure.

There are also highly regarding blends that I don't care for. What good is the hype if it tastes bad? Life's too short and there are too many tasty blends to waste my time trying to develop a taste for something that I don't like. Then again, I have given some of them a few chances. So it goes.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

dmkerr said:


> Somebody at TR.com reviewed #79 and said that all the negative reviewers were just "piling on". Well, isn't that how it worked when we were kids - we all piled on top of the weakest kid? :SM
> 
> Snobbery can be kinda funny sometimes.


I can say, with no equivocation, that I tried The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named with a pretty open mind, as I had an uncle who thought it was Mana from Heaven. My first experience came under his hand, and in a moment of celebration.

When I had been smoking a pipe for many years I was with my uncle watching a football game. Now, his usual smoke was a carefully concocted mixture of some OTC's with slices of apple in the humidor. I did like his daily smoke, and was sharing that with him on the day in question.

Well, our team won the game over our rival (I would name the teams, but I don't want to get people inflamed!) and my uncle said it was time to CELEBRATE! He went to the cabinet and took out four glass (Him, me, dad, and my brother) and poured us a glass of "special occasion" whiskey and reached into a cabinet and pulled out a tin (and yes, it was a TIN back in those days) of "The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named" and said he only smoked this on special occasions; it was his "reward" tobacco. He opened the tin and breathed deep the aroma as if inhaling the vapors of the finest consumables known to man. He took out his BIG pipe (A regimental style) and loaded it full of The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named. He then invited us to share this "special blend" with him.

We all loaded up, lit up, and then dang near threw up!

UGH! ARGH! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!

It is not wise to speak in absolutes, because exceptions can always be found. The fact that The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named is STILL sold means SOMEONE must be buying it (and whoever he is must be smoking a HELL of a lot!); but I have yet to met anyone who did not find The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named to be the most execrable tobacco to ever fowl their bowl.

It is not piling on if it is true.

The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named is the "Plan 9 from Outer Space" of Tobacco. It can only be good in the sense it is SO BAD it is GOOD...and I ain't found THAT Tobacco yet!


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Great story!


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

That was great Granger! Unfortunately, now one of y'all have to send me a sample of this stuff. I just HAVE to try it now. I'll take it over to a friend of mine who smokes about a bowl every 2 weeks or so and we'll have a great time experiencing this mixture which shall not be named.


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

owaindav said:


> That was great Granger! Unfortunately, now one of y'all have to send me a sample of this stuff. I just HAVE to try it now. I'll take it over to a friend of mine who smokes about a bowl every 2 weeks or so and we'll have a great time experiencing this mixture which shall not be named.


No Dave, No...For God's Sake Dave, No!! I fear for your very soul.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

owaindav said:


> That was great Granger! Unfortunately, now one of y'all have to send me a sample of this stuff. I just HAVE to try it now. I'll take it over to a friend of mine who smokes about a bowl every 2 weeks or so and we'll have a great time experiencing this mixture which shall not be named.


Well, I can't get it because I have another name for it "The Mixture Which Shall not be Purchased, Owned, Stored, or Brought Anywhere NEAR Me...much less be sent out onto unsuspecting Brothers of the Leaf!"

It doesn't roll off the tongue...but it hurts your tongue less than "The Mixture Which Shall Not Be Named!"


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

I've really been wanting to try Mixture #79 more than ever since ruralhipster's review of it during the review contest. By his review it sounds like it is similiar to the "lakeland" style of tobaccos. As I like many of those and find the majority of their reviews humorous I'm more than down for a test run. I will admit that I'm not "down" enough to make the purchase of a 14 oz. tub though. :fear:


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

ultramag said:


> I've really been wanting to try Mixture #79 more than ever since ruralhipster's review of it during the review contest. By his review it sounds like it is similiar to the "lakeland" style of tobaccos. As I like many of those and find the majority of their reviews humorous I'm more than down for a test run. I will admit that I'm not "down" enough to make the purchase of a 14 oz. tub though. :fear:


Yeah, that was a great review. No way I'd be down for 14 oz either. From the way people talk, it may be considered hazardous material to dispose of. And it could very well eat through a mason jar if I wanted to bury it. LOL


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

ultramag said:


> I've really been wanting to try Mixture #79 more than ever since ruralhipster's review of it during the review contest. By his review it sounds like it is similiar to the "lakeland" style of tobaccos. As I like many of those and find the majority of their reviews humorous I'm more than down for a test run. I will admit that I'm not "down" enough to make the purchase of a 14 oz. tub though. :fear:


NO YOU FOOL!:doh:

NO!!!!!:scared:

YOU NEVER SAY THE WORD!!!!!:tape:

What part of "The Mixture That Shall Not Be NAMED" doesn't tell you that you can't say it? You may have just unleashed HELL! I have heard stories of Stonehaven turning to dust just at the MENTION of The Mixture That Shall Not Be Named. I have seen Mason Jars Crack, tenons split, and burn outs appear in the sides of Dunhill pipes at the opening of the lid of The Mixture That Shall Not Be Named!:banghead:

Oh the Humanity!


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

4noggins has 2oz packets for $5.98 and Cup o Joes has them for $6.98.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

indigosmoke said:


> 4noggins has 2oz packets for $5.98 and Cup o Joes has them for $6.98.


ARE YOU PEOPLE TRYING TO SPEED UP PIPEAGEDDON?:evil:

Have you not read the book of Pipelations? It says it RIGHT THERE:

_I looked and there before me was a pale tub of tobacco named M****** No. 79 ! Its smell was worse than Death (and we mean that dead cat in the road in the south in the Summertime kind of death), and Tongue Bite Hotter than all Hell was following close behind him._

Are you really willing to open THAT can of worms?


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

indigosmoke said:


> 4noggins has 2oz packets for $5.98 and Cup o Joes has them for $6.98.


One is on my no buy list unless something *very *extreme was needed and shipping is too much really to buy just that. I don't really need anything else to justify a $100 order so I'll wait.



Granger said:


> ARE YOU PEOPLE TRYING TO SPEED UP PIPEAGEDDON?:evil:
> 
> Have you not read the book of Pipelations? It says it RIGHT THERE:
> 
> ...


Yes I am. It's been around a looong time to be _that_ bad. :evil:

Oh ya, I almost forgot:

Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79
Mixture No. 79

Alright, that should do it!!! :kicknuts:


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

:tpd:


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

ultramag said:


> Oh ya, I almost forgot:
> 
> Mixture No. 79
> Mixture No. 79
> ...


I would have laughed more if you had written it 6 or 13 times


----------



## ultramag (Aug 23, 2007)

Granger said:


> I would have laughed more if you had written it 6 or 13 times


:laugh: :mrgreen: :laugh:

I was going for 666 times but I got bored and feared moderation. :banplease:


----------



## laloin (Jun 29, 2010)

great story, taste are subjective to each person. I swore off Latakia blends caz I always got that cheap perfume, soapy taste. then I tried some SG. then someone sent me frog morton across the pond that happened to be made with syrian Latakia wow was that a eye opener. Now I am tending to look for english that are made with syrian Latakia. hehe
I used to dislike Burley, till I tried some Prince albert, wow another eye opener, great stuff earthy/chocolate tones yummy.
hmmmm hey guys lets all bomb granger with 14 oz tubs of the mixture that shall not be named soo he can be in tobacco bliss hahhahahah
troy


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

Granger said:


> Are you really willing to open THAT can of worms?


Don't get their hopes up; you know darned well it's not as good a smoke as a can of worms!


----------



## ruralhipster (Jan 15, 2010)

You know what I find ironic? the Sugar Barrel that Granger loves so dearly tastes exactly like Mixture 79 with a different casing to me, the underlying tobacco is eerily similar.


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

ruralhipster said:


> You know what I find ironic? the Sugar Barrel that Granger loves so dearly tastes exactly like Mixture 79 with a different casing to me, the underlying tobacco is eerily similar.


HERETIC! HOW DARE THEE SPIT UPON THE GOOD NAME OF THE MOST BLESSED!

TO THE FLAMES OF PERDITION, I SEND THEE;

TO THE LAST, I GRAPPLE WITH THEE;

FROM HELL'S HEART, I STAB AT THEE;

FOR HATE'S SAKE, I SPIT MY LAST BREATH AT THEE!

...okay, maybe that was a BIT strong...



Actually they are quite different in base tobacco. The Mixture Which Shall Not be Named is a straight Burley in coarse but, The Most Blessed of All OTC Blends, also known as Sugar Barrel is a mix of Cube Cut Burley and Virginia.

I have NEVER heard anyone use the following words to describe Sugar Barrel's Taste or Smell: Soap, Hand Sanitizer, Embalming Fluid, Death, or Aged Cow But...but I hear it quite often about The Mixture Which Shall Not be Named!


----------



## dmkerr (Oct 27, 2008)

ruralhipster said:


> You know what I find ironic? the Sugar Barrel that Granger loves so dearly tastes exactly like Mixture 79 with a different casing to me, the underlying tobacco is eerily similar.


There are two drugs that are eerily similar in chemical composition. One is aspirin and the other is LSD. The devil (or angel) is definitely in the details.


----------



## owaindav (Mar 7, 2010)

Jason you are cracking me up!


----------



## Zeabed (Apr 23, 2009)

The Mixture that will not be named is people. It is made of people.... Can you imagine how the 78 preceding mixtures must have tasted and smelled like?


----------



## Granger (Jul 24, 2010)

Zeabed said:


> The Mixture that will not be named is people. It is made of people.... Can you imagine how the 78 preceding mixtures must have tasted and smelled like?


Well, if 79 is people...the first 78 must have been really bitter people (see other thread for the joke)!


----------

